scottydoesntknow:Sounds like they just didn't feel like doing it, but instead of saying that they're going to blame youtube.

That's what I'm feeling as well. They probably did spend an awful lot of effort on the story mode part of Brawl, and this time around they just felt like either taking it easy, or spending the time instead polishing the two separate versions.

But it's Nintendo, so it's not surprising that their public reasoning is the darn kids with their streamin' internets

Wade_Wilson:Lame. Story mode was one of the few things that genuinely made Brawl stand out over Melee.

This. When I got Smash on the Wii I never expected to find the single player campaign the most satisfying portion of it. Not that I dislike playing versus, but Subspace Emissary was amazing. Not only were the levels varied and challenging, it was a hell of a great way to introduce you to each character and get you familiar with how they operated. I don't think I would have taken as quick a liking to Meta Knight if story mode hadn't said "here, play this dude".

Can't say I care too much. In this type of game story modes are rarely fun more than one time; 99% of your time with the game is spent in multiplayer modes. Sometimes I wonder why so many multiplayer focused games (Halo, Call of Duty, Starcraft, etc.) still bother with a campaign mode.

Honest question: do any of you still player multiplayer focused games for the single player campaign?

yukichigai:Wade_Wilson: Lame. Story mode was one of the few things that genuinely made Brawl stand out over Melee.

This. When I got Smash on the Wii I never expected to find the single player campaign the most satisfying portion of it. Not that I dislike playing versus, but Subspace Emissary was amazing. Not only were the levels varied and challenging, it was a hell of a great way to introduce you to each character and get you familiar with how they operated. I don't think I would have taken as quick a liking to Meta Knight if story mode hadn't said "here, play this dude".

Brawl took away my Dr. Mario. I will never get his silly overpowered ass back.

FutureWars:Can't say I care too much. In this type of game story modes are rarely fun more than one time; 99% of your time with the game is spent in multiplayer modes. Sometimes I wonder why so many multiplayer focused games (Halo, Call of Duty, Starcraft, etc.) still bother with a campaign mode.

Honest question: do any of you still player multiplayer focused games for the single player campaign?

Depends on the game. I prefer Street Fighter to play solo since going online to play multiplayer is like trying to do brain surgery on yourself by bashing your head into a wrought-iron fence.

FutureWars:Can't say I care too much. In this type of game story modes are rarely fun more than one time; 99% of your time with the game is spent in multiplayer modes. Sometimes I wonder why so many multiplayer focused games (Halo, Call of Duty, Starcraft, etc.) still bother with a campaign mode.

Honest question: do any of you still player multiplayer focused games for the single player campaign?

I played the single-player mode in Melee and Brawl several times. Brawl's was worth the price in and of itself.

HeartBurnKid:FutureWars: Can't say I care too much. In this type of game story modes are rarely fun more than one time; 99% of your time with the game is spent in multiplayer modes. Sometimes I wonder why so many multiplayer focused games (Halo, Call of Duty, Starcraft, etc.) still bother with a campaign mode.

Honest question: do any of you still player multiplayer focused games for the single player campaign?

I played the single-player mode in Melee and Brawl several times. Brawl's was worth the price in and of itself.

I trained to play against my friends in Melee by putting 3 level 9 bots on the smallest map and then practiced hammering the shoulder buttons until I became invincible.

FutureWars:Can't say I care too much. In this type of game story modes are rarely fun more than one time; 99% of your time with the game is spent in multiplayer modes. Sometimes I wonder why so many multiplayer focused games (Halo, Call of Duty, Starcraft, etc.) still bother with a campaign mode.

Honest question: do any of you still player multiplayer focused games for the single player campaign?

I play starcraft for the campaign, challenges and cutscenes. i rarely play multiplayer.

Never played halo or cod, first-person-shooters never really appealed to me.

Boeheimian Rhapsody:I play starcraft for the campaign, challenges and cutscenes. i rarely play multiplayer.

Oh man, that's another one that playing online is like getting a beatdown. There's a brief period in real-time strategy games where everyone is learning the game and you can have a great time. Wait a few months, though, and every time you go to face someone they've got a build order down to the second and you've got 50 of whatever is currently the hot strat wrecking your shiat the moment you start to push back the fog of war.

FutureWars:Can't say I care too much. In this type of game story modes are rarely fun more than one time; 99% of your time with the game is spent in multiplayer modes. Sometimes I wonder why so many multiplayer focused games (Halo, Call of Duty, Starcraft, etc.) still bother with a campaign mode.

Honest question: do any of you still player multiplayer focused games for the single player campaign?

Yep. A good example would be Mortal Kombat 2011 (the most recent one). They actually did a fantastic job of weaving a storyline that takes place through the original trilogy while changing it enough to make it fresh.

Treygreen13:yukichigai: Wade_Wilson: Lame. Story mode was one of the few things that genuinely made Brawl stand out over Melee.

This. When I got Smash on the Wii I never expected to find the single player campaign the most satisfying portion of it. Not that I dislike playing versus, but Subspace Emissary was amazing. Not only were the levels varied and challenging, it was a hell of a great way to introduce you to each character and get you familiar with how they operated. I don't think I would have taken as quick a liking to Meta Knight if story mode hadn't said "here, play this dude".

Brawl took away my Dr. Mario. I will never get his silly overpowered ass back.

FutureWars:Can't say I care too much. In this type of game story modes are rarely fun more than one time; 99% of your time with the game is spent in multiplayer modes. Sometimes I wonder why so many multiplayer focused games (Halo, Call of Duty, Starcraft, etc.) still bother with a campaign mode.

Honest question: do any of you still player multiplayer focused games for the single player campaign?

FutureWars:Can't say I care too much. In this type of game story modes are rarely fun more than one time; 99% of your time with the game is spent in multiplayer modes. Sometimes I wonder why so many multiplayer focused games (Halo, Call of Duty, Starcraft, etc.) still bother with a campaign mode.

Honest question: do any of you still player multiplayer focused games for the single player campaign?

It depends on the game really, but I almost always play campaigns. It lets me get into the game and figure out how to play it before going multiplayer. It also depends on what your perception of a multiplayer focused game is. Some games I see as geared more towards a single player experience, but tack on a multiplayer mode (GTA for instance). I will only play single player with games like that, however, I know some people might play for the multiplayer mode.

scottydoesntknow:FutureWars: Can't say I care too much. In this type of game story modes are rarely fun more than one time; 99% of your time with the game is spent in multiplayer modes. Sometimes I wonder why so many multiplayer focused games (Halo, Call of Duty, Starcraft, etc.) still bother with a campaign mode.

Honest question: do any of you still player multiplayer focused games for the single player campaign?

Yep. A good example would be Mortal Kombat 2011 (the most recent one). They actually did a fantastic job of weaving a storyline that takes place through the original trilogy while changing it enough to make it fresh.

I've played through it a couple times.

I didn't like how they just randomly sprung new characters on you for you to play - it was a good teaser for each one but I spent a lot of time looking up moves on the internet because suddenly I'm playing as Stryker and I don't know how to do any of his moves and I have to beat 3 guys in a row.

thunderbird8804:Treygreen13: yukichigai: Wade_Wilson: Lame. Story mode was one of the few things that genuinely made Brawl stand out over Melee.

This. When I got Smash on the Wii I never expected to find the single player campaign the most satisfying portion of it. Not that I dislike playing versus, but Subspace Emissary was amazing. Not only were the levels varied and challenging, it was a hell of a great way to introduce you to each character and get you familiar with how they operated. I don't think I would have taken as quick a liking to Meta Knight if story mode hadn't said "here, play this dude".

Brawl took away my Dr. Mario. I will never get his silly overpowered ass back.

You know who was really overpowered in Melee? farking Ice Climbers!

EVO and pro gamers take Smash Bros. to a whole other level. I throw all personal rankings out the window talking about those guys. They're playing an entirely different game.

Treygreen13:Boeheimian Rhapsody: I play starcraft for the campaign, challenges and cutscenes. i rarely play multiplayer.

Oh man, that's another one that playing online is like getting a beatdown. There's a brief period in real-time strategy games where everyone is learning the game and you can have a great time. Wait a few months, though, and every time you go to face someone they've got a build order down to the second and you've got 50 of whatever is currently the hot strat wrecking your shiat the moment you start to push back the fog of war.

Seriously. I never got to the point in memorizing build order. I'm really not good at micro-managing my army either. Campaign mode lets me play the game and enjoy the storyline - blow stuff up and have fun.

Treygreen13:scottydoesntknow: FutureWars: Can't say I care too much. In this type of game story modes are rarely fun more than one time; 99% of your time with the game is spent in multiplayer modes. Sometimes I wonder why so many multiplayer focused games (Halo, Call of Duty, Starcraft, etc.) still bother with a campaign mode.

Honest question: do any of you still player multiplayer focused games for the single player campaign?

Yep. A good example would be Mortal Kombat 2011 (the most recent one). They actually did a fantastic job of weaving a storyline that takes place through the original trilogy while changing it enough to make it fresh.

I've played through it a couple times.

I didn't like how they just randomly sprung new characters on you for you to play - it was a good teaser for each one but I spent a lot of time looking up moves on the internet because suddenly I'm playing as Stryker and I don't know how to do any of his moves and I have to beat 3 guys in a row.

Better than a basic tournament, though.

I agree it kinda sucked to learn new moves pretty much every time, but I did like that they forced you to use everyone. Otherwise I would've only used Scorpion every time.

Boeheimian Rhapsody:Treygreen13: Boeheimian Rhapsody: I play starcraft for the campaign, challenges and cutscenes. i rarely play multiplayer.

Oh man, that's another one that playing online is like getting a beatdown. There's a brief period in real-time strategy games where everyone is learning the game and you can have a great time. Wait a few months, though, and every time you go to face someone they've got a build order down to the second and you've got 50 of whatever is currently the hot strat wrecking your shiat the moment you start to push back the fog of war.

Seriously. I never got to the point in memorizing build order. I'm really not good at micro-managing my army either. Campaign mode lets me play the game and enjoy the storyline - blow stuff up and have fun.

That's why I always liked Red Alert and the C&C games. Long varied campaigns and it's also fun to just screw around with the super units and watch the destruction caused by the super weapons.

Treygreen13:Boeheimian Rhapsody: I play starcraft for the campaign, challenges and cutscenes. i rarely play multiplayer.

Oh man, that's another one that playing online is like getting a beatdown. There's a brief period in real-time strategy games where everyone is learning the game and you can have a great time. Wait a few months, though, and every time you go to face someone they've got a build order down to the second and you've got 50 of whatever is currently the hot strat wrecking your shiat the moment you start to push back the fog of war.

I like to play shooters (Halo, Battlefield, etc) online, and I'm even half decent at a few of them. Generally give me a bit of time to learn the mechanics and the maps and I will be able to hold my own. Not games like Starcraft though. I love the single player, and I can't tell you how many hours I spent going though all the campaign missions again and again with the original game, but I just really suck at the multiplayer.

I tried to make a serious go of it with Starcraft 2, and... for a while I did all right. I even won once or twice. But I realized that for me, it was more work than fun. I was trying to get build orders down and learn to hotkey things and I was spending more time practicing than I was playing, and I still wasn't very good at it. Probably I could become an OK player if I put the time in, but... bleh. I do enjoy watching matches on youtube sometimes though.

miniflea:I tried to make a serious go of it with Starcraft 2, and... for a while I did all right. I even won once or twice. But I realized that for me, it was more work than fun. I was trying to get build orders down and learn to hotkey things and I was spending more time practicing than I was playing, and I still wasn't very good at it. Probably I could become an OK player if I put the time in, but... bleh. I do enjoy watching matches on youtube sometimes though.

I had a lot of fun at first too. When everyone was starting out everyone was trying to rush Marines or Zerglings. I had a great Hellion rush that just absolutely wrecked both of those common strategies - but then people got into absurd economies and then it didn't matter what I countered with because they already way outpaced me and doubled my unit count while I was still admiring my little fleet of firecars. I have no idea how people have the time for that sort of thing - and it doesn't really seem fun to do exactly the same thing over and over and over like they do.

I feel the same way about Street Fighter IV. I have some friends who are really really into it, but then I go to play with them and they're going on and on about zoning and frame-canceling and endless tiering conversations. I just don't care. I like to have a friend over who is about as bad as me at the game and we just play for the hell of it.

Except for Smash Bros. My friends wouldn't play that with me because I once beat a friend with just Dr. Mario's sheet.

Treygreen13:I had a lot of fun at first too. When everyone was starting out everyone was trying to rush Marines or Zerglings. I had a great Hellion rush that just absolutely wrecked both of those common strategies - but then people got into absurd economies and then it didn't matter what I countered with because they already way outpaced me and doubled my unit count while I was still admiring my little fleet of firecars. I have no idea how people have the time for that sort of thing - and it doesn't really seem fun to do exactly the same thing over and over and over like they do

Hehehe, that's why I never really enjoyed it either. You could never just stand back and see what you were doing. It was just constant clicking, moving, checking, assigning, clicking, repeat ad nauseum.

The only SC online games I enjoyed were the defense ones where everyone had to work together to stay alive.

scottydoesntknow:Treygreen13: I had a lot of fun at first too. When everyone was starting out everyone was trying to rush Marines or Zerglings. I had a great Hellion rush that just absolutely wrecked both of those common strategies - but then people got into absurd economies and then it didn't matter what I countered with because they already way outpaced me and doubled my unit count while I was still admiring my little fleet of firecars. I have no idea how people have the time for that sort of thing - and it doesn't really seem fun to do exactly the same thing over and over and over like they do

Hehehe, that's why I never really enjoyed it either. You could never just stand back and see what you were doing. It was just constant clicking, moving, checking, assigning, clicking, repeat ad nauseum.

The only SC online games I enjoyed were the defense ones where everyone had to work together to stay alive.

Those were good. I liked the old starcraft survival scenarios like Smash TV or the tower defense ones. I also liked the ones where you spawned marines constantly and earned points to spend on super units. Also 5v2 comp stomps where someone would occasionally go rogue and you'd have to deal with the computer and find the saboteur. Good memories.

Treygreen13:Boeheimian Rhapsody: Treygreen13: Boeheimian Rhapsody: I play starcraft for the campaign, challenges and cutscenes. i rarely play multiplayer.

Oh man, that's another one that playing online is like getting a beatdown. There's a brief period in real-time strategy games where everyone is learning the game and you can have a great time. Wait a few months, though, and every time you go to face someone they've got a build order down to the second and you've got 50 of whatever is currently the hot strat wrecking your shiat the moment you start to push back the fog of war.

Seriously. I never got to the point in memorizing build order. I'm really not good at micro-managing my army either. Campaign mode lets me play the game and enjoy the storyline - blow stuff up and have fun.

That's why I always liked Red Alert and the C&C games. Long varied campaigns and it's also fun to just screw around with the super units and watch the destruction caused by the super weapons.

Red Alert 3 was great but had the stupid ai partner that either sucked you dry or singlehandedly won the battle.# C & c generals:zero hour is still awesome.

ScaryBottles:Who gives a shiat really Nintendo is dead they and their fanbois just don't realize it yet. Start programming for other consoles and focus on their handhelds its the only way they will survive.

talkertopc:FutureWars: Can't say I care too much. In this type of game story modes are rarely fun more than one time; 99% of your time with the game is spent in multiplayer modes. Sometimes I wonder why so many multiplayer focused games (Halo, Call of Duty, Starcraft, etc.) still bother with a campaign mode.

Honest question: do any of you still player multiplayer focused games for the single player campaign?

I never play computer games against people.

I won't even play games meant for multiplayer against people. Such as...oh, I don't know, League of Legends. If ever there was an unbalanced, rage inducing game, it's that one. Playing against bots is fun though.

Treygreen13:miniflea: I tried to make a serious go of it with Starcraft 2, and... for a while I did all right. I even won once or twice. But I realized that for me, it was more work than fun. I was trying to get build orders down and learn to hotkey things and I was spending more time practicing than I was playing, and I still wasn't very good at it. Probably I could become an OK player if I put the time in, but... bleh. I do enjoy watching matches on youtube sometimes though.

I had a lot of fun at first too. When everyone was starting out everyone was trying to rush Marines or Zerglings. I had a great Hellion rush that just absolutely wrecked both of those common strategies - but then people got into absurd economies and then it didn't matter what I countered with because they already way outpaced me and doubled my unit count while I was still admiring my little fleet of firecars. I have no idea how people have the time for that sort of thing - and it doesn't really seem fun to do exactly the same thing over and over and over like they do.

I don't remember what they're called, the guys with jump jets that can go up and down levels without a ramp, but I had a pretty sweet opener where I'd make a few of them and get them into the enemy mineral line. Of course even if that worked I had no idea how to exploit my success and would usually lose soon after.

StrangeQ:talkertopc: FutureWars: Can't say I care too much. In this type of game story modes are rarely fun more than one time; 99% of your time with the game is spent in multiplayer modes. Sometimes I wonder why so many multiplayer focused games (Halo, Call of Duty, Starcraft, etc.) still bother with a campaign mode.

Honest question: do any of you still player multiplayer focused games for the single player campaign?

I never play computer games against people.

I won't even play games meant for multiplayer against people. Such as...oh, I don't know, League of Legends. If ever there was an unbalanced, rage inducing game, it's that one. Playing against bots is fun though.

I like playing that against bots too.

miniflea:Of course even if that worked I had no idea how to exploit my success and would usually lose soon after.

Treygreen13:thunderbird8804: Treygreen13: yukichigai: Wade_Wilson: Lame. Story mode was one of the few things that genuinely made Brawl stand out over Melee.

This. When I got Smash on the Wii I never expected to find the single player campaign the most satisfying portion of it. Not that I dislike playing versus, but Subspace Emissary was amazing. Not only were the levels varied and challenging, it was a hell of a great way to introduce you to each character and get you familiar with how they operated. I don't think I would have taken as quick a liking to Meta Knight if story mode hadn't said "here, play this dude".

Brawl took away my Dr. Mario. I will never get his silly overpowered ass back.

You know who was really overpowered in Melee? farking Ice Climbers!

EVO and pro gamers take Smash Bros. to a whole other level. I throw all personal rankings out the window talking about those guys. They're playing an entirely different game.

You know, I consider myself pretty good at Smash Bros., but watching those guys play, I can tell I'd be in a world of hurt. Their reaction times are good. Very fast follow-up on combos and advantages. Oof.

I was once curious who was considered the "best" character in Brawl, so I did some Googleing. Turns out MetaKnight is popularly considered to be overpowered. News to me, as I always considered him wonky to control and too light on his attacks. *shrug*

hstein3:I was once curious who was considered the "best" character in Brawl, so I did some Googleing. Turns out MetaKnight is popularly considered to be overpowered. News to me, as I always considered him wonky to control and too light on his attacks. *shrug*

Treygreen13:StrangeQ: talkertopc: FutureWars: Can't say I care too much. In this type of game story modes are rarely fun more than one time; 99% of your time with the game is spent in multiplayer modes. Sometimes I wonder why so many multiplayer focused games (Halo, Call of Duty, Starcraft, etc.) still bother with a campaign mode.

Honest question: do any of you still player multiplayer focused games for the single player campaign?

I never play computer games against people.

I won't even play games meant for multiplayer against people. Such as...oh, I don't know, League of Legends. If ever there was an unbalanced, rage inducing game, it's that one. Playing against bots is fun though.

I like playing that against bots too.

Did they ever actually improve the bot AI or can you still get kills by the bots running through 2-3 towers at L1? Because that wasn't playing a game, that was "I want win of the day and only have 10 minutes."

I'm pretty okay with this decision. It's a zero sum thing. Sakurai isn't saying, "Throw out those cutscenes, guys, they're just going to get spoilered!", he's saying "Let's make more cutscenes to introduce our new characters and spend the rest of our time making this the best smash yet!"

hstein3:I was once curious who was considered the "best" character in Brawl, so I did some Googleing. Turns out MetaKnight is popularly considered to be overpowered. News to me, as I always considered him wonky to control and too light on his attacks. *shrug*

All the fast but hard to use characters show up on those tier lists. Once you get them down I'm sure they're really good, but for me I think I spent more time watching MetaKnight flail around uselessly flying off ledges than winning. Sort of like how Luigi was the best character in Mario 2 for the experts in spite of the fact that he's absurdly difficult to use unless you spend all your time with him. I felt kinda the same way about Seth from Street Fighter IV - everyone seems to say he's the best but he's about as durable as a wet paper bag and I'll never be good enough to beat anyone with him.

I like playing as Luigi just for his weird, weird, weird smash. But if I'm playing to win I usually play as Mario. I got pretty good with him. I understand he doesn't rate high or whatever but that doesn't matter to me.

Treygreen13:I like playing as Luigi just for his weird, weird, weird smash. But if I'm playing to win I usually play as Mario. I got pretty good with him. I understand he doesn't rate high or whatever but that doesn't matter to me.

Dude, I don't get into "rating" characters. I can kick ass with anyone. But I'm better with certain characters. I've played thousands of hours of smash starting with the original n64 title. I've taught about a dozen people to play, too. People will gravitate towards certain characters.

Any time someone talks crap about a character, I kick their ass with said character.

Honest Bender:Treygreen13: I like playing as Luigi just for his weird, weird, weird smash. But if I'm playing to win I usually play as Mario. I got pretty good with him. I understand he doesn't rate high or whatever but that doesn't matter to me.

Dude, I don't get into "rating" characters. I can kick ass with anyone. But I'm better with certain characters. I've played thousands of hours of smash starting with the original n64 title. I've taught about a dozen people to play, too. People will gravitate towards certain characters.

Any time someone talks crap about a character, I kick their ass with said character.

I read about somebody at this year's EVO tournament totally owning the SSF4 competition with Hakan (who's supposedly a low tier character). Just goes to show that which character is used doesn't matter as much as whether the player knows how to use it.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who had epic C&C games. We'd also have 4 on 4 AoE games were literally every resource would be stripped from the map and every person would have their entire unit cap as special units. Only then would the carnage begin.

Honest Bender:Treygreen13: I like playing as Luigi just for his weird, weird, weird smash. But if I'm playing to win I usually play as Mario. I got pretty good with him. I understand he doesn't rate high or whatever but that doesn't matter to me.

Dude, I don't get into "rating" characters. I can kick ass with anyone. But I'm better with certain characters. I've played thousands of hours of smash starting with the original n64 title. I've taught about a dozen people to play, too. People will gravitate towards certain characters.

Any time someone talks crap about a character, I kick their ass with said character.

Absolutely. I'm really partial to Mario and Roy; I absolutely can't do squat with Wario or Snake. Yet my cousin loves those two and makes me sweat when we play. Barring egregious differences in power levels, I think most tier ratings tend to be wankery.

Honest Bender:Any time someone talks crap about a character, I kick their ass with said character.

HeartBurnKid:I read about somebody at this year's EVO tournament totally owning the SSF4 competition with Hakan (who's supposedly a low tier character). Just goes to show that which character is used doesn't matter as much as whether the player knows how to use it.

Always love tossing around this article (written by Seth Killian, former Street Fighter world champ):

So, just to be clear: the price of having a lot of genuinely distinct characters is that some of them will be less effective than others. These degrees of effectiveness are really an almost direct consequence of the variety. It is basically unavoidable- and not something to complain about, when you're also (justifiably) insisting on variety. Discovering which characters ARE strong like this is a big part of the fun of playing- not some unfortunate, damning piece of knowledge which corrupts all future play. It's not like it's discovered, then there's a thunderclap from on high in which God agrees- "Congratulations Brian, you've discovered the most powerful character! Your work here is done, and you can stop playing now!" Geez. The "proof" that some character is top tier consists solely in their continued, actual dominance. It's proven by someone playing with them, and winning. That's it. Scrubs act like it's some kind of disaster that a top tier even exists, much less that someone should actually play them (and god save the soul of anyone playing top tier characters, and playing them WELL- the horror!).

Basically, scrubby and lower-tier players just use tier lists as an excuse, since tier lists are usually a reflection on the highest level of play possible and have nothing to do with scrub hell. Until you've gotten into the top percentile of players, pretty much every challenge can be overcome by simply getting better at the game. (My favorite were the RTS players I always heard complain about a race but would never adopt it, as mentioned in the article.)

Exhibit B is that these scrubs also seem to like thinking that they're "fighting the power" by picking unpopular or weak characters- that they're "rebels". Since they can't win, they attempt to squeeze value out of the very act of picking the "victims" of unbalanced games. Now there's obviously nothing wrong with picking a character you like, but these scrubs pick weak characters precisely BECAUSE they're weak. WTF. Newsflash: you don't "fight the power" simply by playing weak characters. They're in such a hurry to buck the system by playing their own "wacky" characters that they don't realize this is only half the battle. You don't get props merely for selecting some weird character- you get props for WINNING with the weird character, in ways people hadn't previously seen. You are not cool just for being wacky- there's nothing cool about moving the select cursor and hitting a button. It's your play that counts. A lot of players playing "wacky" characters don't use them as a format for experimentation and discovery- they use them as an excuse for losing. The reason they got mercilessly beat down is because they were TOO COOL to try and really win. Dud.